﻿Robin Edgar has hurled a variety of accusations and epithets at his numerous targets. His most recent, borrowed from another UU blogger, is passive-aggressive.

As usual, he makes no bones about diagnosing Unitarian Universalists he disapproves of, but easily launches into a tirade when anybody even dares to ask if he might have psychological problems. Not to mention the fallacious reasoning behind his use of the label.﻿﻿

Passive-aggressive people refuse to do what they are asked to do. UU leaders are refusing to do what Robin Edgar asks of them. Therefore, in Robin Edgar’s eyes, UU leaders are passive-agressive.

Setting aside the fact that there are other, perfectly legitimate reasons why different people refuse to do things, he’s missing the point that passive-aggressive individuals specifically resist authority. So Robin Edgar has it backwards … or is incredibly arrogant in assuming that he should have authority over Peter Morales, Gini Courtier, William Sinkford, John Buhrens and anybody else whom he accuses of ‘mistreating’ him.

Even more interesting is when we look at other specific symptoms of passive-aggressive personalities, and see how many actually match of the behaviour of Robin Edgar himself.

The passive-aggressive create chaotic situations, and make excuses for their behaviour. They constantly complain about being misunderstood and unappreciated, and exaggerate their sense of personal misfortune. They have few intimates, often pushing them away with continual anger and mistrust. Most important of all, the passive-aggressive always blame others, and never take responsibility for their own actions.

Still, just as UU leaders are not passive-aggressive because Robin Edgar projects one major trait on them, Robin Edgar is not necessarily passive-aggressive just because he seems to share some passive-aggressive traits. But his negativity, hostility, rage and narcissistic need for attention are definitely cause for concern. He is right when he says that others do not understand when he behaves the way he does … not only because of how counter-productive his behaviour is, but because he has utterly failed to learn how unproductive that behaviour is after so many, many years of repetitive lashing out.

Mister Edgar, whatever reasons you give for rationalizing your behaviour, it has not worked, and it will not work. You need to learn how to do things differently. You need to learn to let go of your rage, and to put yourself in the position of those many individuals whom you have been attacking and hurting over the years. But your recalcitrance has convinced us that you cannot learn this yourself. You need help. Please get that help, before it’s too late.

Once again, Robin Edgar has stooped to new lows in his unending lashing out against Unitarian Universalists. This time, the current target of his obsessive rage is UUA President Reverend Peter Morales, first with a post insinuating (in his lame yet outrageous style of ‘parody and satire’) that Morales has ‘demonized and marginalized’ a whole host of groups to which Mister Edgar claims the right to speak on behalf of. He gives no evidence that Morales has indeed done anything to deserve such a comment, but this is par for the course with his previous behaviour, seeking any and every excuse to bash and belittle UUs in a desperate attempt to inflate himself.

But it is the post following this which is even more offensive. In response to Morales’ observations regarding the Maricopa County sheriff’s office under Joe Arpaio, Robin Edgar labels Morales the ‘token Latino Hispanic President of the UUA’, further accusing Morales of hypocrisy because, as far as Robin Edgar is concerned, the UUA does not have enough Hispanics in its ranks to speak the truth in love regarding racism.

There is an enormous difference between the UUA, which has been making efforts to deal with issues of race and ethnicity, and a sheriff’s department with appallingly disproportionate statistics for its community (both in the lack of Hispanic officers and the high number of Hispanics arrested by the department). But to lower himself to such an offensive personal attack against Morales only shows just how far this man is willing to go to draw attention to himself, and to artificially prop himself by tearing others down.

Mister Edgar, if the only way you can make yourself feel worth and dignity is to lash out at others, call them names, and resort to racism and slander, then you have no claim to feel outraged or indignant when the target of your endless ire either refuse to respond, or express how you have hurt and demeaned them. How dare you attempt to make yourself the judge of who lives up to UU ideals, when you yourself go out of your way to do the opposite.

It’s no surprise that Robin Edgar is in love with his own words. Lots and lots and lots of words. Lots and lots and lots of incredibly, tediously repetitive words. In lots and lots and lots of repetitive posts and comments.

This Wednesday, he’s made four posts on his blog. Whether he’s going for a record, or simply had too much caffeine (or whatever) we can’t be sure. Unfortunately, there’s not much to what he has to say. It’s just more of the same.

The first of these posts is yet another email missive to Reverend Peter Morales, the UUA’s current President. Yet another lengthy, childish whine about how Morales is not paying attention to him. Well, why should he, Mister Edgar? Why should he pay attention to you lodging the same complaints and making the same gripes over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and…

Then three posts about what UU bloggers have to say, all with the same ripped-off catch-phrase: ‘But don’t take my word for it.’

No imagination or ideas. No real news. Just more of the same gripes, complaints, insults and general UU-bashing he’s always done.

In other words … another online temper-tantrum by the Perseveration Avenger.

Mister Edgar, you’re not even amusing anymore. You’re just plain irritating. Then again, you’ll probably be bragging that you’re deliberately irritating, and even believe in some bizarre fashion that such ridiculous behaviour actually advances your ’cause’ – whatever that may be.

So why do we keep track of this man? Because so few people are willing to hold him to account for his actions. Ignore him, and he will simply find an even more outrageous way to get attention. Attempt to engage him, and he will simply dominate the discussion and make it all about him. He needs to be treated like the spoiled brat that he is. And what do you do with a spoiled brat? Tell him forthrightly that his antics and tantrums are unacceptable, and then send him to his room until he learns to behave around civilised people.

We can’t actually confine Robin Edgar, but we can chastise him. We only wish more people had the courage to do so.

Robin Edgar has certainly gone out of control lately. In his seventh blog post in two days, he reproduces his email communication to UUA President Peter Morales and others, announcing that he intends to file a formal complaint against Reverend Cynthia Cain.

Her crime? Publishing impressions and opinions on her blog.

On ‘A Jersey Girl in Kentucky,’ Reverend Cain talks about the behaviour and rhetoric of specific US Republicans, and how it distressed her. In his typical hyperbole, Robin Edgar not only accuses her of ‘demonizing and marginalizing’ Republicans in general, he calls on the recipients of his email …

‘to to take steps to personally ensure that my formal unbecoming conduct complaint against Rev. Cynthia P. Cain arising from her anti-Republican bigotry … and her other unbecoming conduct as posted to the interconnected web of the internet in her ‘OMG Mean Peopl DO Suck’ blog post, is handled in a manner that is very transparent and results in Rev. Cynthia P. Cain being subjected to some genuine and appropriate accountability for her conduct which is unbecoming of any minister, let alone a Unitarian Universalist minister.’

Not to mention demanding that Morales and other UUA leaders …

‘respond to this email in a timely manner to inform me about how you intend to deal with this formal unbecoming conduct complaint against Rev. Cynthia P. Cain in a manner that genuinely honors and upholds your publicly stated commitment to UUA transparency and accountability, and which clearly and unequivocally stands on the side of love for Republicans and all of those people who have been unjustly demonized and marginalized by intolerant and bigoted, or otherwise hostile and abusive, Unitarian Universalist clergy.’

Either Robin Edgar is incapable of seeing that Reverend Cain is clearly talking about the actions and words of certain Republicans, or it does not matter to him. Either he does not believe that UU ministers have the right to express their thoughts and feelings, or that they must somehow reach some bizarre level of perfection with regard to their psychological state.

Not to mention that Reverend Cain’s blog post is from September 3, 2008. It takes over two years for Robin Edgar to file a ‘formal complaint’ and yet he now demands that the UUA respond ‘in a timely manner’!

Aside from how obviously distorted and frivolous his complaint is, it is another example of how hypocritical this man is. Robin Edgar has gone out of his way to lash out at UUs, and especially UU ministers, with juvenile and profane insults which are even more ‘demonizing and marginalizing’ than anything he has complained about. He has even admitted that he is ‘deliberately rude and offensive’, and then attempts to rationalize and justify such outrageous behaviour. Yet he then declares that he is the authority who will determine which ministers are ethical and which should be punished – and woe to the UUA if they do not do as he says!

We hope and trust that Reverend Morales and the staff at UUA headquarters do indeed handle his complaint appropriately – as yet another attempt by this disturbed narcissist to gain attention and claim yet another reason to lash out at people who have better things to do than to stroke his ego.

We’ve wondered why Robin Edgar uses so many asterisks in his blog posts and comments. It’s not like he can’t use italics or bold print for emphasis. He has, in fact.

Look through his blog, however, and you’ll find his observation on a passage from Kurt Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions, where the narrator draws a picture of an asshole. A picture which looks a lot like an asterisk.

As Robin Edgar has often said (plagiarising another blogger) ‘What’s the connection?’ Well, Kurt Vonnegut was a Unitarian Universalist. Some people have abbreviated Unitarian Universalism as ‘U*U”. Vonnegut, asterisk, Unitarian Universalism, the human anus.

It doesn’t stop there. Look how many times Robin Edgar makes rectal references whenever he can. Not to mention his constantly referring to individuals he does not like as ‘asshats’.

Apparently he thinks this is clever humour. Sure it is – for preadolescent boys. After that, it just gets annoying, especially when you repeat it as often as he does.

Many people have compared Robin Edgar to a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum. We believe that is both simplistic and an understatement. But certainly there is a lack of maturity in his behaviour and attitudes. How sad that such a man cannot find the help he needs to grow up and let go of his unhealthy fixations.

Robin Edgar has now posted six resolutions he has made, and true to form, they all sound like threats agains Unitarian Universalists and anybody else who dares to question his one-sided view of the world (namely, that he is the righteous victim, and anybody who dares disagrees with him is a ‘Big Fat U*U Hypocritical Boneheadly Stupid Liar’, or something to that effect).

Read for yourself…

Resolution #1 – File one or more clergy misconduct complaints against one or more “less than excellent” U*U ministers in order to assess whether or not UUA President Peter Morales will actually live up to his promise to have the most transparent and accountable UUA administration ever.

In other words, if Peter Morales does not do what he wants, then he shall add him to his list of targets for harassment and bile. Notice that Mister Edgar does not even bother to consider whether his complaints might have merit, as he automatically assumes that his complaints always do. Remember the first of Robin Edgar’s Rules of Self-Righteousness: he is never wrong and can do no wrong. No matter how frivolous, bizarre or unsubstantial his complaint, it does not matter. The fact that he filed it, and that he considers it valid and important (because, after all, Robin Edgar is so very important!) should compel the UUA to follow it — and justify his harassing UU leaders when they do not.

Resolution #2 – Seriously consider filing one or more Police Ethics Commission complaints against one or more Station 11 police officers who behaved in a “less than professional” manner that *could* be considered to constitute police intimidation and harassment during 2010. The flip side of this coin is of course publicly commending those Station 11 police officers who have behaved in a genuinely polite and professional manner during their interactions with me.

Be bad to Robin Edgar, he will be bad to you. Be good to him, and he might be good to you (or, he may demand that you get yourself further engulfed in his endless crusade for attention and validation). Nor does he limit his narcissistic demands to UUs, but extends them to police and government agencies. Everybody must do as he wishes, and nobody must question him.

Resolution #3 – Look into the possibility of laying pertinent criminal charges against the deeply misguided female member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal who falsely accused me of pushing her while I was protesting during the Unitarian Church of Montreal’s “Bid Nite” fund-raising auction in mid-November 2010.

Well, Mister Edgar, why were you picketing them in the first place? Oh, that’s right – you’re still filled with rage over their kicking you out eleven years ago after enduring years of disruptive and abusive behaviour from you, including endless demands for attention and ‘justice’. Apparently you do not believe that churches and other private groups have the right to decide who can and cannot be a member, and under what terms. No, you declare the right to impose your will on them.

As for your allegations of being ‘falsely accused’? How many times have you lodged this complaint, and then when evidence of your behaviour is put forward, you then try to rationalize it? How many times have you been found guilty of false accusations and hyperbole?

Resolution #4 – Buy an Amtrak pass or Greyhound pass good for one month and go “spiralling down” south of the border to protest in front of as many Unitarian*Universalist churches as possible during a period of up to one month.

So much for Robin Edgar’s continual assertion that he’s not against all UUs – only those he deems guilty of ‘injustices, abuses and hypocrisies’. Why, then, ‘protest in front of as many Unitarian*Universalist churches as possible’? You might as well picket every white person for crimes against people of African, Latin or First Nation ancestry. No, the only reasons for picketing ‘as many churches as possible’ – even those who have never heard of you or your complaints – is an obsessive all-or-nothing approach to ‘justice’. Either all UUs do as you demand, or all are guilty by association and thus worthy of your wrath. Some justice!

Resolution #5 – Attend at least one, and possibly two or more, UUA Board of Trustees meetings during 2011 in order to follow-up on the “obviously deep concerns” that I shared with most if not all UUA trustees and key staff members of President Peter Morales’ UUA administration, not the least of them being Rev. Peter Morales himself, “less than sincere” UUA Vice President Kay Montgomery, and Vioe President of Ministries Rev. Harlan Limpert.

Once again, Robin Edgar insists that the UUA’s leadership accept his endless complaints – and his extreme demands for ‘justice’ – without question. He is never wrong, so his complaints and demands are ‘obviously deep concerns’. He can do no wrong, so continually harassing churches and meetings with pickets and disruptions is justified in his eyes. He is not to be ignored, and so any UU leader who does not heed his demand is subject, at least, to yet more accusations and insults.

Resolution #6 – Create six brand-spanking new picket signs to replace those picket signs that were stolen and/or vandalized by Unitarian*Universalist petty thieves and Big Fat U*U Vandals. . . These new picket signs will be bright orange rather than yellow and *some* of them will reference the UUA’s Standing On The Side Of Love campaign. I have already bought the six sheets of bright orange Coroplast corrugated plastic material required for making these new picket signs.

It’s not enough to say he’s creating new picket signs, or even to explain that the reason is because of theft and vandalism. No, he has to let loose yet another accusation against UUs. Since he was picketing UUs, then UUs must have stolen or vandalised his signs. So where’s the proof, Mister Edgar? Have you filed a criminal complaint against anybody? Has the police arrested anybody for this?

New Year’s Resolutions are usually meant to commit oneself to making a change in one’s life. Instead, Robin Edgar has committed himself to threatening UUs with more of the same – more attacks, abuse, harassment and insults. We suggest that UUs resolve to hold their ground, and let Robin Edgar know that his offensive behaviour will not be tolerated.

As for Robin Edgar, we suggest a more constructive resolution for 2011: Go see a psychiatrist.Your obsession and rage have gotten you nowhere, and cannot be good for you. Since you’re not able to let go and move on by yourself, we join the chorus of those who have encountered your bile and narcissism in saying that it is high time that you get help.

As far as we can tell, Dan Furmansky has never done anything to Robin Edgar. Apparently, that’s not good enough for the self-proclaimed “Emerson Avenger.”

Furmansky, current manager of the UUA’s Standing on the Side of Love Campaign, is now the latest recipient of “the Robin Edgar Treatment”, which goes something like this…

First, Robin Edgar reads something you have written online. Sounds innocent enough, except that Robin Edgar seems unable to read anything regarding Unitarian Universalism without looking for an excuse to lash out at Unitarian Universalists. So when Furmansky calls for supporting religious freedom for Muslims in the United States, Robin Edgar then sends a post to the Campaign’s blog, accusing UUA President Peter Morales of being anti-Muslim.

Obviously, Robin Edgar does not understand what tolerance actually means. Morales and other UUs may disagree with the tenets of Islam, or any other religious position, yet still uphold the right of people who hold to those views to worship and live freely in a free society. That is tolerance, and that is the philosophy behind the Standing on the Side of Love Campaign’s support for the Cordoba House project, and for President Obama’s defense of religious freedom for all Americans.

Of course, it won’t end there. No doubt Furmansky will choose not to publish Robin Edgar’s comment, as is his right as blogsite moderator. The likely reaction will be to accuse Furmansky of “censorship” for doing so, not to mention joining in some vast UU conspiracy against him personally. Remember, if you are not with Robin Edgar all the way, then you must be against him, and since those against him are guilty of “injustices, abuses and hypocrisy”, then you must be, too.

We are sure that Dan Furmansky has better things to do than worry about the ravings of this man. So we encourage him to do what he feels is best as both campaign manager and blog moderator.

Besides, as we have said before, there is no way to win with Robin Edgar. Question him, and he attacks you. Ignore him, and he still attacks you. Try to help him, and sooner or later he goes after you for not supporting him enough.

So, carry on, Dan. Do what is right. Just be careful if you ever decide to visit Montreal.

We’ve made no secret of how disturbing we find Robin Edgar. He makes an effort to be mean, and then gloats about it. We’ve lost track of how many times he’s tossed out the phrase kick in the balls when lashing out against yet another UU he disapproves of, or who simply did not pay attention to him.

Bad enough he wants to poison cyberspace with his mean-spiritedness – and not just on “The Emerson Avenger” but almost a dozen anti-UU blogs he has set up all over the web (and yet he insists this is not an obsession or fixation). He even goes out of his way to mislead his readers.

One of his most recent blog posts is entitled “UUA President Peter Morales Kicks the “Collective Authorship” Of the Robin Edgar Sucks Blog In Their Big Fat U*U Balls”. If the title itself is not ridiculous enough, the content Robin Edgar provides is outright misrepresentation. He has taken Reverend Morales’ comments about recent legislation in Arizona, and rewritten them into a statement supposedly supporting Robin Edgar (and implying that Morales condemns our actions).

For the record, we are aware of the criticisms of this blog from many UUs. We are equally aware of how many support our trying to make people aware of just how harmful – and potentially dangerous – Robin Edgar is. But we have never doctored any comments to make Robin Edgar look bad. We don’t need to. It says a lot about Robin Edgar that he feels the need to do so himself.

At long last, Robin Edgar has given a specific answer to the question of what he wants.

After announcing on Ms Kitty’s Saloon and Road Show that he intended to picket the headquarters of the Unitarian Universalist Association (yet again), Robin Edgar was asked (yet again) what exactly he was demanding. After insisting (yet again) that he had “clearly” stated those demands, he finally provided this link to an earlier email he sent to UUA President Reverend Peter Morales. Edgar’s letter is typically lengthy and bombastic, so we will provide some choice clips — and our impressions:

“You [Morales] are on record as saying that you are “absolutely committed to doing the right thing” when it comes to taking action on clergy sexual misconduct, and that taking action is a “moral imperative.” I put it to you that taking responsible action on non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct is equally a moral imperative or moral obligation, and I call upon you to fully commit yourself to doing the right thing in response to all forms of clergy misconduct committed by UU ministers. The fact of the matter is that some of the more serious cases of non-sexual clergy misconduct can be every bit as harmful and damaging to victims and implicated UU congregations as some cases of clergy sexual misconduct.”

Well, this begs the question of what constitutes “non-sexual clergy misconduct” and how the UUA and it affiliates bodies ought to respond. Robin Edgar claims (yet again) to being a victim of such misconduct, insofar as he alleges to have been:

“deeply insulted and defamed, and unjustly demonized and marginalized, by verbally and psychologically abusive UU ministers”

As far as we can tell, this is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Robin Edgar has invested almost two decades of his life to insulting, defaming and unjustly demonizing Unitarian Universalists of all types, for such sundry offenses as declining to join his crusade, refusing to publish ad hominem attacks on their blogs, or just plain not giving him the attention he so desperately craves. One of his causalties, the late Reverend Timothy Jensen, had earned Egdar’s dubious wrath for having argued with him that, no, he did not plagiarize Edgar when commenting on a distorted map of the US. Edgar has justified his malicious attacks by claiming that he is merely “reflecting” the alleged abuse heaped upon him. Whatever abuse he may have suffered, this is far from reflecting — it is multiplying, and it is done against many who have had no quarrel with him, and have even tried to help him. So if Robin Edgar wants to whine about being marginalized, then maybe he should consider that his own extreme behavior is a greater factor than anything any UU minister has ever done to him.

Moving right along, we finally get to Robin Edgar’s demand:

“After publicly “Standing On The Side of Love” for ALL victims of UU clergy misconduct on “National Standing on the Side of Love Day” this February 14th, I would ask that you to then take steps to ensure that providing genuine restorative justice for ALL victims of UU clergy misconduct is on the agenda of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee meeting in mid-March 2010 and that this MFC meeting leads towards the goal of a new official UUA apology to be delivered to victims of non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, or indeed all forms of clergy misconduct, at the 2010 UUA GA in Minneapolis Minnesota.”

Excuse me, Mister Edgar, but… The Reverend Ray Drennan did offer one apology after another to you, yet you consistently rejected them. Why, then, should Morales or any other UU minister even consider answering this demand when you reserve the right to then say: “Not good enough, I want more”?

We the collective authorship of this blog remain unconvinced that an “official UUA apology” for what individual ministers may have said or done will ever put to rest this matter. We are convinced, in fact, that Robin Edgar will either proclaim that such an apology is not enough, or simply use it as a tool for imposing more and more demands on the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other groups and individuals. Far from burying the hatchet, we are convinced that Robin Edgar is looking for yet another weapon.

We do not use such combative imagery lightly. Originally we had decided to suspend this blog because of real concerns that the conflict between Robin Edgar and the Montreal church could escalate. We share these concerns, based on the histrionic tone and even violent imagery on Edgar’s blog; his latest perseveration is about kicking people in the balls.

If Robin Edgar carries through on picketing the UUA headquarters, we would hope that the staff there will seriously consider contacting law enforcement to carefully monitor him. Of course, Edgar will insist (yet again) that his demonstrations are always peaceful. But we have to wonder, with all of the rage and bile he spills forth, and the sense of frustration he exhibits, just how long that will last.